Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[BugI02]

So maybe the theory that the leak came from conservatives could be true.

More likely Roberts WAS the leak, to put more pressure on the justices favoring overturn

 

[KLB]

Oh. I get that definitions change. Like Webster or whoever changed the definition of “female” a few days ago. So you’re saying… woke people have changed the dictionary definition of abortion?

Nope. Just sounded like you were denying that they changed defintions.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Twangbanger]

This **** is getting pedantic even for INGO standards.

Now THAT's what I call getting kicked out of hell by the devil...

Lolz

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I noticed a couple of things. First being how she side stepped the question of if she has gotten any other calls from out of state regarding young girls. Another was just how a question was asked "Have you failed to report any recent abortions?" B/I mine. And the litany of lies at the end.

 

[churchmouse]

Oh boy

It's the evil Christians trope again, responsible for all of the world's ills just because they existed concurrently

Hope you're not going to turn out to be gay, the two have a similar level of correlation; although in my experience on INGO, virulent militant anti-Christianity has a MUCH better predictive value

It is my understanding that more lives have been takin in the name of someone’s God/Gods/Deity than any other single reason.

Christians may well hold the high numbers here I am not sure. Muslims can’t be far behind.

 

[jamil]

Who knows. I’m thinking if it did, we’d surely know the culprit by now.

I’m thinking that it is known beyond just the party involved. Both sides have a reason to have leaked it. The accusation that it came from the conservative side was weak, before learning about Roberts efforts. Now, it looks like both sides have a good reason to leak it. If it’s the conservatives, I suspect Roberts knows who it was. And if he does, the investigation is theater.

 

[chipbennett]

So maybe the theory that the leak came from conservatives could be true.

Unlikely, and even the article alludes to it. Roberts was having zero effect in "moving the needle". Threats against justices' families didn't sway them, either.

 

[chipbennett]

More likely Roberts WAS the leak, to put more pressure on the justices favoring overturn

That's... exactly opposite of what the article said; rather, that the leak effectively ended any chance Roberts had to effect his typical, behinds-the-scenes wheeling and dealing.

 

[chipbennett]

It is my understanding that more lives have been takin in the name of someone’s God/Gods/Deity than any other single reason.

Christians may well hold the high numbers here I am not sure. Muslims can’t be far behind.

[Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have entered the chat]

 

[chipbennett]

I notice that the interviewer didn't ask her why she reported the 27-year-old rapist of that 10-year-old as a 17-year-old minor.

Other than that, Bernard just parroted the same, tired, old abortion talking points.

 

[jamil]

More likely Roberts WAS the leak, to put more pressure on the justices favoring overturn

That’s possible. Roberts caves to pressure so he might project his spinelessness on them and think they’ll cave to pressure. I don’t think I’d classify it as more likely. I still think the most likely of the competing theories is it came from the left. But not by a lot since learning about Roberts efforts to sway opinions.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It is my understanding that more lives have been takin in the name of someone’s God/Gods/Deity than any other single reason.

Christians may well hold the high numbers here I am not sure. Muslims can’t be far behind.

[Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have entered the chat]

You can count the numbers any way you want and get whatever result you want.

In terms of raw numbers, the dictators that chipbennett listed caused more deaths between them that just about any other cause/movement you can list in recorded history. But despite all of their ideologies being inherently atheistic/materialistic, there's plenty of easy ways to argue that it's unfair to lump them all together. Also, while all of them persecuted some religions and were generally anti-religion in their writings, not all of them tried to eradicate all religion, and Hitler even tried to use Christianity to some degree to further his cause. And then there's also the fact that Hitler was technically baptized as an infant, so if you want to make Christianity look bad you can list his kill count in the Christian category.

If you want to make religion in general look bad, you can take all the human sacrifices, wars, etc, that went on in the name of religion in ancient times, and extrapolate that back into prehistoric times, and come up with incredibly high estimates.

At the end of the day it's a useless game to play, and in my mind it seems eerily similar to the debates over whether such and such ethnic or racial group deserve reparations based on historical wrongs. It's a never-ending rabbit hole, and at the end of the day just a distraction from reasonable discussion.

 

[Creedmoor]

 

[chipbennett]

You can count the numbers any way you want and get whatever result you want.

In terms of raw numbers, the dictators that chipbennett listed caused more deaths between them that just about any other cause/movement you can list in recorded history. But despite all of their ideologies being inherently atheistic/materialistic, there's plenty of easy ways to argue that it's unfair to lump them all together.

The allegation was that more people have been killed through action taken based on religious ideology than for any other reason. So, yes; to counter that allegation, it is wholly appropriate to lump these atheist/humanist (i.e. non-religious) dictators together.

Also, while all of them persecuted some religions and were generally anti-religion in their writings, not all of them tried to eradicate all religion, and Hitler even tried to use Christianity to some degree to further his cause. And then there's also the fact that Hitler was technically baptized as an infant, so if you want to make Christianity look bad you can list his kill count in the Christian category.

No, you can't. Hitler rejected the religion of his youth/parents. His actions were not in any way based on religious ideology. His regime actively hunted down Christians and shut down churches.

If you want to make religion in general look bad, you can take all the human sacrifices, wars, etc, that went on in the name of religion in ancient times, and extrapolate that back into prehistoric times, and come up with incredibly high estimates.

Still nowhere near as high as the 100MM+ in the 20th century at the hands of atheists/humanists.

And it also doesn't take into account all of the lives saved primarily through the efforts of religious people throughout history, through humanitarian mission work, establishment of hospitals, battlefield medicine, etc.

At the end of the day it's a useless game to play, and in my mind it seems eerily similar to the debates over whether such and such ethnic or racial group deserve reparations based on historical wrongs. It's a never-ending rabbit hole, and at the end of the day just a distraction from reasonable discussion.

Any time anyone tries to make the original assertion above, I'm going to counter it.

 

[BugI02]

It is my understanding that more lives have been takin in the name of someone’s God/Gods/Deity than any other single reason.

Christians may well hold the high numbers here I am not sure. Muslims can’t be far behind.

Events like the crusades were really about profit and plunder using God's name as cover, but God is saddled with the death count by Christianity's detractors. I don't even believe that there is a scriptural call to liberate the holy lands, the book tells us that Jesus will see to that himself upon his return

Most mass murderers share the superficial similarity of being men, does that make you somehow feel personally guilty? The Zulu wars in Southern Africa could be abstracted to be a war between a Christian side and a heathen side, should we ignore all the other forces at play as well as whether those simplifications about the two sides are even accurate, and attribute those deaths to God?

 

[churchmouse]

N

You can count the numbers any way you want and get whatever result you want.

In terms of raw numbers, the dictators that chipbennett listed caused more deaths between them that just about any other cause/movement you can list in recorded history. But despite all of their ideologies being inherently atheistic/materialistic, there's plenty of easy ways to argue that it's unfair to lump them all together. Also, while all of them persecuted some religions and were generally anti-religion in their writings, not all of them tried to eradicate all religion, and Hitler even tried to use Christianity to some degree to further his cause. And then there's also the fact that Hitler was technically baptized as an infant, so if you want to make Christianity look bad you can list his kill count in the Christian category.

If you want to make religion in general look bad, you can take all the human sacrifices, wars, etc, that went on in the name of religion in ancient times, and extrapolate that back into prehistoric times, and come up with incredibly high estimates.

At the end of the day it's a useless game to play, and in my mind it seems eerily similar to the debates over whether such and such ethnic or racial group deserve reparations based on historical wrongs. It's a never-ending rabbit hole, and at the end of the day just a distraction from reasonable discussion.

No attempt here to vilify religion just something I have heard in discussions among people I hold to be much more intelligent on such matters as me. One of them was (RIP) a Catholic priest and a very learned man.
But I and my simple public HS education will step back before this goes off the rails.

 

[HoughMade]

If people didn't do horrific things in the name of God, there would not have been a need for the 3rd commandment. It ain't just about casual talk.

Anyhoo, that someone may claim to have been sent by HoughMade to do something terrible doesn't make it so...but I'm nowhere near perfect, so in my case, it might happen.

 

[ljk]

I've been traveling out of the state for the last week and half, how is the special legislative session going?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I've been traveling out of the state for the last week and half, how is the special legislative session going?

Depends who you ask, but so far it seems like they're mostly going to make both sides angry. They have a version of the bill that purportedly bans all abortion except for rape, incest, saving the life of the mother, or preborn children diagnosed with conditions what would be potentially fatal outside of the womb. The wording of the bill, however, is so vague that it has the potential to leave some massive loopholes that could end up even increasing the number of certain procedures, like late term and dismemberment abortions, plus the new definition of "abortion" that it puts into place could loosen regulations related to disposition of fetal remains, as well as regarding experimentation on fetal body parts.

I really don't know what they think they're doing. They're going to catch just as much flak from the pro-abortion side because all they'll hear is "ban" and they'll go crazy as usual, but then the bill is so loose in its wording that it isn't really going to accomplish what it's supposed to, which won't leave the pro-life side happy either.

On Tuesday they did add some amendments to help with tightening up the language on the rape exception, so maybe they'll work on some of the other problems and turn in into a fairly decent bill, but we'll have to see.